Digital BW, The Print

The options on Lulu are kind of confusing.  The B&W print that is 
$0.02/page is like cheap paperback quality or newprinty kind of - I 
wouldn't recommend it.  I tried to print a test book of B&W images in 
color and wasn't happy.  I'll put the disclaimer that like most 
things, my images probably needed to be tweaked for their printers.  
I bought a copy of Light Leaks "magazine" and the quality was good - 
on par or better with MyPublisher - the color and B&W images looked 
good, the paper was nice.  You can go to 
http://www.colorcentriccorp.com for more information. They are one of 
the two printers that lulu uses.  It's kind of hard to figure out who 
does what with lulu and I agree that there isn't much info in for 
forums.This is what I was sent from colorcentric:

"I've attached an ICC profile for the Xerox iGen3, which if you are an
advanced user, may (and I stress may) help visually on screen if your
monitor is calibrated.  Our standard position is that having color
management turned off is the best route to take, as the system does a
pretty good job of rendering images.  But, if you prefer to "tweak" 
your photos, you can try the profile.  
The caveat is that the profile does not guarantee perfection, so we 
don't "guarantee" WYSIWYG from Photoshop, even with this profile 
being used."

I'm waiting for another color album to come - don't know what to 
expect.  Hope that helps. 

Earl

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Mark Hahn" 
<markhahn2000@y...> wrote:
>
> Thanks for the input Steve!  I was looking at Lulu and was worried 
> that the $.15 per page was too good to be true, but have now found 
> several people like yourself willing to say that the b&w is 
> acceptable.
> 
> Looks like fun :)
> 
> mark
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Bye" 
> <steve_bye@c...> wrote:
> >
> > Check out lulu.com and MyPublisher. I've only seen output from 
> lulu.com and
> > it looked very good. It was mixed color and B&W images. The color 
> was pretty
> > good. The tonality of B&W (brightness and contrast) looked good, 
> but I never
> > saw the originals to judge.
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > Here is the pertinent info on lulu.com. The books have a flat 
> price for up
> > to roughly 100 copies. Even if you are printing B&W only I think 
> you may
> > want to go with the higher-priced color book process since it is 
> printed on
> > a better paper with a higher resolution printer.  
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > The pricing boggles my mind it is so low. To buy just one book 
the 
> charge
> > for the B&W process is $4.53 + $0.02/page. For the recommended 
> higher
> > quality printer that also prints color the price is $4.53 + 
> $0.15/page. The
> > 100 page color book I saw was $20. Lulu.com will also sell the 
> books for
> > you, at whatever price you want to set, and send you the profits. 
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > I do not work for lulul.com in any way, but I think self-
> publishing, at
> > these prices, is pretty exciting.
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > http://www.lulu.com/about/whatislulu.php
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > The book I bought to check out the quality was about Rangefinder
> > photography.
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > http://www.lulu.com/content/110604
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > There is one problem. From my limited experience, the printing 
> industry does
> > not know much about color management. Lulu.com is no different. 
> Read their
> > online forums for limited color management info.
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > Steve Bye
> > 
> >  
> > 
> >   _____  
> > 
> > From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> > [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf 
Of 
> Mark Hahn
> > Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2006 8:57 AM
> > To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: [Digital BW] b&w micro publishing
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > anyone use a service for micro publishing b&w photography in 
small 
> > bound editions?  I've seen nice and cheap color output, but no 
> samples 
> > of b&w.  Advice/recommendations appreciated!
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>